I had some difficulty understanding the idea of “taxonomy of meaning for myths”. The way I see it is, each theory that we have looked at so far has its own kind of insights into myth and not all theories have the same ones. If we look at a myth in, say, Levi-Straussian theory then we will be able to get an anthropological, sociological, aetiological insight. The problem is, there are gaps in between insights that may be filled by other theories. To further explain my previous example I will use Campbell’s hero theory to fill in the psychological gab that Levi-Strauss cannot fill. Therefore we use multiple analyses to discover new meanings of myth? Does anyone have a clearer understanding of this theory? 

Comments Off on Chapter 39: taxonomy of meaning